[mduell]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

No matter what, all purchased A380's will be built, and Airbus might even break even. Of course that all depends on how well it flys. The FAA has approved a 6 mile between it and other landing aircraft. The second time a plane crashes because of it's wake, they might have to extend it to 10 miles. That might influence one of the reasons for flying larger aircraft with more passengers.

Airbus won't break even if all the purchased (166) A380s are built; they're currently about 250 units short of breakeven (assuming 13% IRR over the next 10 years IIRC).

Also, the seperation for aircraft following the A380 is generally greater than 6 miles. The ICAO working group, whose recommendations the FAA will undoubtedly adopt, recommended a separation of 6 nm for ICAO "Heavy" aircraft, 8 nm for ICAO "Medium" aircraft, and 10 nm for ICAO "Light" aircraft following an A380. So a 747 can follow at 6.9 miles, but an A320 will have to follow by 9.2 miles.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Also, the seperation for aircraft following the A380 is generally greater than 6 miles. The ICAO working group, whose recommendations the FAA will undoubtedly adopt, recommended a separation of 6 nm for ICAO "Heavy" aircraft, 8 nm for ICAO "Medium" aircraft, and 10 nm for ICAO "Light" aircraft following an A380. So a 747 can follow at 6.9 miles, but an A320 will have to follow by 9.2 miles.

So, you could land two A380's within a couple of minutes and have 1,500 people on the ground. That's amazing!! Think about how much longer it would take to get that number of people on the ground 787's or 747's. The A380 sounds like the answer to a lot of the traffic problems airports are experiencing.

As for this project being badly run from the start ... whoever says that has to look at some examples of other projects of this scale. This aircraft is the most revolutionary civilian aircraft built since the 747. Bits of this plane are built in a dozen different countries including the US. It's a massive project and the most major problem they had was with wiring. It's not like they had to remove the entire upper deck (747) or had to redesign an aircraft that wouldn't stop falling out of the sky from the ground up (V22). Things could be a lot worse for Airbus. I don't understand the whole patriotism thing that evidenced in this thread anyway. Describing the 747 (bits of which are manufactured in 33 countries) as American or the A380 (bit of which are built in the US) as European are inaccurate.

[Kevin]

Lets forget they are losing money in the whole deal. IT'S A SUCCESS.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Troll 

So, you could land two A380's within a couple of minutes and have 1,500 people on the ground. That's amazing!! Think about how much longer it would take to get that number of people on the ground 787's or 747's. The A380 sounds like the answer to a lot of the traffic problems airports are experiencing.

You sure could; heck, you could even squeeze 1700. And how often will that happen? Perhaps once or twice a day at one or two airports globally?
Of course, if putting bigger aircraft on routes was the "answer" to the capacity problem, why are there are many narrowbodies going into Heathrow and Nartia? Oh, that's right, you can't replace every narrowbody with a widebody.

Originally Posted by Troll 

As for this project being badly run from the start ... whoever says that has to look at some examples of other projects of this scale. This aircraft is the most revolutionary civilian aircraft built since the 747. Bits of this plane are built in a dozen different countries including the US. It's a massive project and the most major problem they had was with wiring. It's not like they had to remove the entire upper deck (747) or had to redesign an aircraft that wouldn't stop falling out of the sky from the ground up (V22). Things could be a lot worse for Airbus. I don't understand the whole patriotism thing that evidenced in this thread anyway. Describing the 747 (bits of which are manufactured in 33 countries) as American or the A380 (bit of which are built in the US) as European are inaccurate.

It's not a factory-floor fsck-up, it's a leadership fsck-up; and the leadership at Airbus, and EADS as a whole, is European.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Troll 

So, you could land two A380's within a couple of minutes and have 1,500 people on the ground. That's amazing!! Think about how much longer it would take to get that number of people on the ground 787's or 747's. The A380 sounds like the answer to a lot of the traffic problems airports are experiencing.

As for this project being badly run from the start ... whoever says that has to look at some examples of other projects of this scale. This aircraft is the most revolutionary civilian aircraft built since the 747. Bits of this plane are built in a dozen different countries including the US. It's a massive project and the most major problem they had was with wiring. It's not like they had to remove the entire upper deck (747) or had to redesign an aircraft that wouldn't stop falling out of the sky from the ground up (V22). Things could be a lot worse for Airbus. I don't understand the whole patriotism thing that evidenced in this thread anyway. Describing the 747 (bits of which are manufactured in 33 countries) as American or the A380 (bit of which are built in the US) as European are inaccurate.

Yup it will be a blast. 1,050 people deplaning (you won't see any 380's configured over 525 for a long time.) Heading toward their bags looking for lost tags. Personally I'm looking forward to check in. Get 2 or 3 380's departing within a hour or so. Should be a blast. Reminds me of my favorite tune. "Take this Hub and shove it, I ain't workin here no more."

But it's going to be a long time before we get to that point.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Yup it will be a blast. 1,050 people deplaning (you won't see any 380's configured over 525 for a long time.) Heading toward their bags looking for lost tags.

No one is going to operate an A380 domestically, so you have to pass customs with 1100 other people too.

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Yup it will be a blast. 1,050 people deplaning (you won't see any 380's configured over 525 for a long time.) Heading toward their bags looking for lost tags. Personally I'm looking forward to check in. Get 2 or 3 380's departing within a hour or so. Should be a blast. Reminds me of my favorite tune. "Take this Hub and shove it, I ain't workin here no more."

But it's going to be a long time before we get to that point.

A380 is only certified to carry around 850 people. It will never go beyond that unless Airbus re-do the evaluation test (yes, that 90 seconds escape test!) with over 1000 people.

Originally Posted by mduell

No one is going to operate an A380 domestically, so you have to pass customs with 1100 other people too.

Well, the Japanese like to use big plane on domestic routes... I know JAL or ANA hasn't order any, but my guess is they will eventually. JAL uses 747 for domestic routes. Qantas has used 747 for domestic routes before (although not regularly). Perhaps China Southern could well be the first airline to do it

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

A380 is only certified to carry around 850 people. It will never go beyond that unless Airbus re-do the evaluation test (yes, that 90 seconds escape test!) with over 1000 people.

uh.... they were talking about two planes of 500+ landing at the same time dude. And if you've ever gone thru cutoms in Houston Texas you might agree with me that you wish it'd go a little slower. The line moves so fast that you can't even put down your suitcase for a second to get out your passport. It's unreal. 1000+ people would go thru that line in less than a minute, easy.

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

Well, the Japanese like to use big plane on domestic routes... I know JAL or ANA hasn't order any, but my guess is they will eventually. JAL uses 747 for domestic routes. Qantas has used 747 for domestic routes before (although not regularly). Perhaps China Southern could well be the first airline to do it

I don't know why they wouldn't use A380's to go between NY, LA, and Chicago. Is there a reason? I honestly don't know.

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

uh.... they were talking about two planes of 500+ landing at the same time dude. And if you've ever gone thru cutoms in Houston Texas you might agree with me that you wish it'd go a little slower. The line moves so fast that you can't even put down your suitcase for a second to get out your passport. It's unreal. 1000+ people would go thru that line in less than a minute, easy.

Now I get it! Two planes of 500+ landing about the same time? It's already happening! Heathrow has multiple planes coming from US overnight in the mornings every day... and cope well (although they will need Terminal 5 operational very soon).

Singapore and Hong Kong airports faces jumbos after jumbos all the time... there are the international airports - no domestic flights whatsoever. Haven't heard any lengthy customs delay due to too many planes landing.

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I don't know why they wouldn't use A380's to go between NY, LA, and Chicago. Is there a reason? I honestly don't know.

I guess partly due to the way how US airline network works. While it's true hub and spoke model means routes between two hubs would have high volume of passengers, but in reality it might needs a reduction of frequencies of number of flights between two hubs... making connection flights a little more tricky. Also there's more aircraft takeoff and landing slots available in US airports. In Asian airports and certainly Heathrow aircraft landing slots is at a premium. So adding capacity often means using larger aircraft.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

A380 is only certified to carry around 850 people. It will never go beyond that unless Airbus re-do the evaluation test (yes, that 90 seconds escape test!) with over 1000 people.

Then why build a plane that carries more people?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Yup it will be a blast. 1,050 people deplaning (you won't see any 380's configured over 525 for a long time.) Heading toward their bags looking for lost tags. Personally I'm looking forward to check in. Get 2 or 3 380's departing within a hour or so. Should be a blast.

It's called disembarking. Deplaning!

I don't see how it's more difficult to check in 1,000 people for one flight or 330 people for three flights. You just open three times as many check-in counters. And the same for getting through customs. In any event, would I put up with 10 minutes more at check-in for the benefit of space to walk around in on my 13 hour flight ... or a bar ... or a shower? Of course I would.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

A380 is only certified to carry around 850 people. It will never go beyond that unless Airbus re-do the evaluation test (yes, that 90 seconds escape test!) with over 1000 people.

It took 80 seconds to evacuate 873 persons (passengers and crew). I think 1000 passengers is in the realm of possibility.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

A380 is only certified to carry around 850 people. It will never go beyond that unless Airbus re-do the evaluation test (yes, that 90 seconds escape test!) with over 1000 people.

Well, the Japanese like to use big plane on domestic routes... I know JAL or ANA hasn't order any, but my guess is they will eventually. JAL uses 747 for domestic routes. Qantas has used 747 for domestic routes before (although not regularly). Perhaps China Southern could well be the first airline to do it

If they build the A380-900, they will probably be able to increase the max occupancy by analysis, rather than breaking more body parts.

Note that the current trend in the Japanese market is toward smaller aircraft; they're replacing 747s with 773s on domestic routes.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I don't know why they wouldn't use A380's to go between NY, LA, and Chicago. Is there a reason? I honestly don't know.

Fuel cost vs/ passenger load. To make money with large aircraft they have to be FULL or close to it. There are TONS of flights from other airlines that go to those destinations pretty cheap. So to be compete with these airlines they need to have the same cheap prices. Since they burn more fuel, have a larger crew to pay, they need to have a high passenger load to make money, so it's not financially a good idea for large aircraft in the US to fly domestic unless you can guarantee a large load of passengers... with all the competition, they can't.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I don't know why they wouldn't use A380's to go between NY, LA, and Chicago. Is there a reason? I honestly don't know.

Why? Because passengers prefer low fares (vacation and VFR) and higher frequency (biz). The way to get low fares is to match capacity to demand, and there isn't enough demand for 500+ seat aircraft.
Look at what they're flying today: 125 (B73G) to 250 (B762) seat jets. There's plenty of room to increase capacity with larger jets before they get anywhere near A380 sized; but the trend is headed the other way anyway (IIRC average airliner size went down 5 seats in the last decade).

[Troll]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why? Because passengers prefer low fares (vacation and VFR) and higher frequency (biz). The way to get low fares is to match capacity to demand, and there isn't enough demand for 500+ seat aircraft.
Look at what they're flying today: 125 (B73G) to 250 (B762) seat jets. There's plenty of room to increase capacity with larger jets before they get anywhere near A380 sized; but the trend is headed the other way anyway (IIRC average airliner size went down 5 seats in the last decade).

That logic doesn't apply to the A380 though. It's cheaper to run half full than a 747 fully laden. The whole design concept of the A380 is to give passengers more space per passenger than on a 747. The idea is to have lounges and other open areas so they had to design it to be bigger without costing more to run. The A380 will therefore be good for any route that a 747 is currently flying because it will cost the same to run with the same number of passengers.

[exca1ibur]

That logic holds perfect for domestic travel in the US. The most common plane for domestic travel is the A320 / B737. You add in overhead (fuel, crew, catering) of the A380 OR the B747 those flights will have to be full or their ticket prices have to be higher than the other guy to compete. You can't have a price war with an aircraft that big against the other airlines flighting smaller aircraft domestic. There is WAY too much competition and no demand for an A/C that size domestically, INCLUDING the B747.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Troll 

That logic doesn't apply to the A380 though. It's cheaper to run half full than a 747 fully laden. The whole design concept of the A380 is to give passengers more space per passenger than on a 747. The idea is to have lounges and other open areas so they had to design it to be bigger without costing more to run. The A380 will therefore be good for any route that a 747 is currently flying because it will cost the same to run with the same number of passengers.

Please cite credible sources for this cost comparison.

There's no way it's the same cost (ACMI+fuel) to run a B747-400 and an A380-800 with the same average load (figure ~320 pax) on the same average mission (~6000nm).

[frankthetank966]

looks amazing but very frightening size.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by frankthetank966 

looks amazing but very frightening size.

Nah, it's the same length as a 747 and just a little wider. I'm not scared.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Please cite credible sources for this cost comparison.

There's no way it's the same cost (ACMI+fuel) to run a B747-400 and an A380-800 with the same average load (figure ~320 pax) on the same average mission (~6000nm).

Airbus is the source for that but I guess you wouldn't consider them credible. I guess we will have to wait until the thing is in Airlines' hands. That said, in theory, it is 15%-20% cheaper to operate per seat than a 747 which means it costs the same to fly with the same number of passengers as a full 747-400. Plus, even full it has 50% more space and only 35% more seats which means more space for everyone.

The BBC has some good videos of the passenger flight they took with journalists on board - showing bars and lounges and the beds in first and business. Looks incredible. This is going to make those long trips to Asia and Africa so much more comfortable.

[frankthetank966]

When are they going to begin using it?I must have missed it in the article. It reminds me of soul plane.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Airbus is the source for that but I guess you wouldn't consider them credible. I guess we will have to wait until the thing is in Airlines' hands. That said, in theory, it is 15%-20% cheaper to operate per seat than a 747 which means it costs the same to fly with the same number of passengers as a full 747-400. Plus, even full it has 50% more space and only 35% more seats which means more space for everyone.

The BBC has some good videos of the passenger flight they took with journalists on board - showing bars and lounges and the beds in first and business. Looks incredible. This is going to make those long trips to Asia and Africa so much more comfortable.

For that 15-20% figure they're probably comparing CASM and assuming both aircraft are full. As you reduce the load factor, CASM goes up. In other words, an 80% full A380 costs more to operate per-seat than a 100% full A380. Also, we have no idea what mission they're using for those figures.

Also, more floor space doesn't equate to more space per passenger; not all of the additional floor space is usable space. A good example is the upper deck near the windows; due to the curvature of the fuselage, there is a necessary gap between the side of the seat and the cabin wall (if they moved the seat over, your shoulder/head would hit the wall). So there may be a little more space per seat (same can be said of the 777 over a 747), but it's not the 11% (150%/135%) that you suggest.

I haven't seen any A380 concept first or biz class seats/beds/suites/lounges that are any better than what is available on SIA B77W (first and biz seat/beds), EK A345 (first suites), BA B744 (biz seat/beds), or VS A346/B744 (first seat/beds and bar/lounge).

Originally Posted by frankthetank966 

When are they going to begin using it?I must have missed it in the article. It reminds me of soul plane.

Singapore Airlines will receive their first airframe in October, so it could be in service as early as November, but some analysts think SIA will wait until they have two airframes available before putting it in service (in case one goes tech, for crew training, etc).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

For that 15-20% figure they're probably comparing CASM and assuming both aircraft are full. As you reduce the load factor, CASM goes up. In other words, an 80% full A380 costs more to operate per-seat than a 100% full A380.

Yes, that is exactly what he said.

Except he said that an A380 filled with only as many passengers as would fit into a fully loaded B747 would probably cost about the same per-seat as a fully loaded B747.

[Sherman Homan]

I can't wait for the re-make of Airplane! Think how many more skits will be possible with 850 people on board.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yes, that is exactly what he said.

Except he said that an A380 filled with only as many passengers as would fit into a fully loaded B747 would probably cost about the same per-seat as a fully loaded B747.

Unfortunately the math doesn't work out like that. Also, let's specify which B747 we're talking about. I'm going to assume the -400.

Assuming the full aircraft A388 CASM is 15-20% better than the 744, that means the trip cost is ~10% higher ((555pax/416pax)*82.5%).
Bring the A388 down to a B744 pax load (eliminating 139 pax + bags + seats) and the mission weight drops by about 20t.
So for his assertion to be correct, dropping the mission weight by ~3.5-5% (depending on TOW) results in a ~10% cost savings. I don't buy that.

And this is using the most optimistic figures, straight from Airbus.

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Singapore Airlines will receive their first airframe in October, so it could be in service as early as November, but some analysts think SIA will wait until they have two airframes available before putting it in service (in case one goes tech, for crew training, etc).

SIA definitely won't be using A380 for fare revenue service until they receive the 2nd (perhaps even 3rd) A380. SIA wants to use A380 to fly the kangaroo route (Sydney to London, obviously via Singapore for SIA) with its A380 initially. If you just do the SIN-LHR leg you would need 2 A380. SIN-SYD leg you would just able to do it with 1 A380 but you would be pushing the 24 hour return trip which leave very little margin for delay.

What will SIA do when they receive the first A380 (or two) is that their pilots will fly A380 to all the SIA destinations to do trails, so that they pilots are familiar with the plane before they will have any fare-paying passengers on board (and good publicity, too!)

[Eug]

[frankthetank966]

nice pics Eug?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by frankthetank966 

nice pics Eug?

Why, do they not work for you? They work fine here. I can see them on a second computer too.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Why, do they not work for you? They work fine here. I can see them on a second computer too.

They look fine to me. Please explain them though. Is that a real flight? A mockup cabin? Real passengers? Airbus employees? Actors?

[Eug]

"Passengers on the world's largest passenger aircraft test out the fully reclining seats during a flight over France. The A380 Airbus can seat up to 840 people, and recently carried 200 journalists on the first flight for the news media."

[Eug]

Where can I get a blue video iPod?



EDIT:

Oops. This pic is from an upscale A320. Oh well. I expect to see something similar on the new A380.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Where can I get a blue video iPod?

Geez why do I have to ask about each one. What's with the baby blue iPod?!?!?!?!!? Cool pix tho, thanks!!!!

[Troll]

There is video on the BBC website of a passenger version of the A380 in flight. There is a full bar on board, there's a lounge, full beds in first and business class (like nothing I have ever seen on a B747)and 400 and something economy class seats.

As for the calculation you did, Mdeuell, you make a lot of assumptions in arriving at your number (and leave out things like fuel) but essentially you're saying that a 2/3 full A380 wouldn't be 10% more efficient than a full A380. Taking into account fuel savings and the weight savings of extra passengers and crew, that doesn't seem impossible to me but I do think there are a few problems with your numbers.

Airbus has made public statements about the efficiency which airlines have relied on in purchasing the aircraft. If their statements proved not to be true, the airlines would be entitled to cancel their orders. The only thing I've heard from Airbus on the point of efficiencies is that the A380 meets or exceeds all of the models they had. But as I said, we'll see.

As for the interior space, are you saying that the angle on the upper deck of the A380 between the seats and the fuselage is steeper than on a 747? Even if that were true, it would affect two rows of seats only. There is still substantially more space on an A380 than on a 747.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Troll 

There is video on the BBC website of a passenger version of the A380 in flight. There is a full bar on board, there's a lounge, full beds in first and business class (like nothing I have ever seen on a B747)and 400 and something economy class seats.

As for the calculation you did, Mdeuell, you make a lot of assumptions in arriving at your number (and leave out things like fuel) but essentially you're saying that a 2/3 full A380 wouldn't be 10% more efficient than a full A380. Taking into account fuel savings and the weight savings of extra passengers and crew, that doesn't seem impossible to me but I do think there are a few problems with your numbers.

Airbus has made public statements about the efficiency which airlines have relied on in purchasing the aircraft. If their statements proved not to be true, the airlines would be entitled to cancel their orders. The only thing I've heard from Airbus on the point of efficiencies is that the A380 meets or exceeds all of the models they had. But as I said, we'll see.

As for the interior space, are you saying that the angle on the upper deck of the A380 between the seats and the fuselage is steeper than on a 747? Even if that were true, it would affect two rows of seats only. There is still substantially more space on an A380 than on a 747.

What you're seeing on the BBC is a concept from Airbus of what they want people to think of when they see the A380. It has no relation to the actual cabins that airlines will be fitting.
If you've never seen full beds in first and biz, you've been ignoring the international premium cabins for too long. SIA leads the way with an 80"x35" (that's about twin sized) bed in first class on the B77W; business class is 30" wide and about 65" long.

What crew savings? Are you going to fly with 1.6 pilots because you only have an 80% pax load? No. Are you going to reduce cabin staff? No, because minimum cabin staffing levels are based on the number of seats installed, not the number of people on board.
Even if I'm off by a factor of 2, I'm still right. A 7-10% weight savings isn't going to reduce trip costs by 10%.
Please, by all means, provide alternative numbers, along with how you derived them.

Airlines are not relying on Airbus' public statements for their purchasing decisions. They're receiving much more detailed performance specs (from Airbus and RR/EA) that the public will never see. And missing the performance promises isn't an all or nothing deal; airlines can seek financial compensation and maintain their order instead of canceling, as they have done with the repeated schedule delays.

[Eug]

Yeah, my dad flew first class 30 years ago on a plane with full plush leather seats and full cots on the second floor.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yeah, my dad flew first class 30 years ago on a plane with full plush leather seats and full cots on the second floor.

Boeing has offered to put beds in the 747-8 crown space, but I doubt any airlines will take it due to the weight.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Airbus is the source for that but I guess you wouldn't consider them credible. I guess we will have to wait until the thing is in Airlines' hands. That said, in theory, it is 15%-20% cheaper to operate per seat than a 747 which means it costs the same to fly with the same number of passengers as a full 747-400. Plus, even full it has 50% more space and only 35% more seats which means more space for everyone.

The BBC has some good videos of the passenger flight they took with journalists on board - showing bars and lounges and the beds in first and business. Looks incredible. This is going to make those long trips to Asia and Africa so much more comfortable.

LOL. Why not take 800 journalists for a ride? Another bogus PR campaign. Come talk to me when a few operators have 20,000 cycles on their 380's.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

LOL. Why not take 800 journalists for a ride? Another bogus PR campaign. Come talk to me when a few operators have 20,000 cycles on their 380's.

You are getting tiresome. Why don't you give this thread a rest for a year or so and let people that like the plane enjoy it without your static.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

You are getting tiresome. Why don't you give this thread a rest for a year or so and let people that like the plane enjoy it without your static.

Nah. Let's keep hearing about the problems.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

You are getting tiresome. Why don't you give this thread a rest for a year or so and let people that like the plane enjoy it without your static.

If Glideslope wouldn't talk bad about the 380, he wouldn't talk at all. It's his way of communicating to the world.

Just check his posts on Airliners.net (or just take my word for it)

V

[OreoCookie]

One question remains however: why isn't there an analogous thread about Boeing's Dreamliner? Lack of interest? </devil's advocate>

[analogika]

Lack of insecurity among Airbus proponents?

Why are Boeing "fans" so much more insistent on putting down Airbus than the other way round? Why are Americans so annoyingly fixated on thinking they're NUMBER ONE?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

One question remains however: why isn't there an analogous thread about Boeing's Dreamliner? Lack of interest? </devil's advocate>

Um the only reason this thread is going on still is because of Airbus's continuing problems.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Um the only reason this thread is going on still is because of Airbus's continuing problems.

Makes it even more interesting why there is no 787 thread!

...and another question:
Why are you guys constantly compairing the A380 with the 787??
The only thing those airplanes have in common is that they are new!
Boeing is building are large variety of aircrafts and so is Airbus!

Ok, we have the longest and the biggest...

[Troll]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What you're seeing on the BBC is a concept from Airbus of what they want people to think of when they see the A380. It has no relation to the actual cabins that airlines will be fitting.

I disagree when you say it has no relation to the actual cabins. The flying version the BBC went on has 443 economy seats on board.

The BBC doesn't mention how many there were in business and first but judging from the video, it seems there are at least 50 on each deck. It seems highly likely that that aeroplane was the standard 3 class 555 passenger configuration. That means there isn't that much difference between that plane and the version I'm likely to fly on. There are of course even more luxurious configurations than that offered - viz. the Virgin layout with a gym and showers.

Originally Posted by mduell 

If you've never seen full beds in first and biz, you've been ignoring the international premium cabins for too long.

I didn't say I'd never seen beds in first class did I? I said I have never seen first class beds like the ones in the video. And I've flown SIA.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Please, by all means, provide alternative numbers, along with how you derived them.

I don't see why your back of cigarette pack calculation holds more weight than Airbus' own statements. Airbus says the A380 is no more expensive to operate than a 747 with the same number of passengers - at least that what they were saying on their stand at Le Bourget.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Um the only reason this thread is going on still is because of Airbus's continuing problems.

The 787 has lots of problems of its own, many of them are similar to those Airbus has faced with the A380 (overweight, supply problems, etc.). So far, the most of the predictions have been proven wrong (`never gonna fly', `wings are not going to be certified', `never gonna sell', `never going to pass the evac test', etc.). Most airlines actually do have an interest in keeping Boeing alive (and Airbus as well), because a duopol is preferable to a monopol.

So the thread is also kept alive by people who post about Airbus' successes that have proven its critics wrong (e. g. glidescope)

[glideslope]

I love you guys. Oh, how is the Production Certificate coming? Actually building anything?

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Lack of insecurity among Airbus proponents?

Why are Boeing "fans" so much more insistent on putting down Airbus than the other way round? Why are Americans so annoyingly fixated on thinking they're NUMBER ONE?

Pax Americana baby!!!!!!!!!